Hood, on 24 March 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:
I agree with a lot of what MischiefSC said except for the part everyone is on even ground and the win/lose thing.
Watch your W/L you will notice that if you start to get to many wins you will start to have bad teams and if you start to have a lot of loses you will get good teams. Now I am guessing but I think most people are in the 50/50 range on W/L (no not exactly but close).
Which brings me to my second point once you start to get to many wins you get more of the 10-15% (I think is what you said). So if you get 1-2 people that just run out there die n the first 30 seconds your not going to win many of those matches no matter how good you are.
As far as CW goes ... its not coming, you can see it.. I have accepted that fact. They cant even make a fair ELO (drop) consistently let alone make something as massive as planet capture and make it fair or fun to play. Proof was in last weekend..
Steiner IMHO has way more people than anyone else for the most part. You will have to have 3 houses attacking Steiner just to hold them off. Then Davion will jump in and attack say Laio and they will be crushed (not trying to pick on Laio just an example. In the mean time if players constantly lose planets or are on the defensive all the time they will not play and soon you will have an empty house of no players.
So now you throw in Clans.. Steiner is fighting Clans, Snakes are fighting Clans.. Steiner and HK have to make pacts to let the other three drop on their planets to fight the Clans right or do they just get to drop on Steiner planets and fight whoever they want?? No supply chain needed right??..??
Sorry for being so long winded here.. its a way of getting my point. If I have to keep dropping with players that do not want to play as a team why do I want to play? I can go play Halo and get the same result. This was not going to be Halo.. So its easy, make an option for team play or solo play.. You go solo into team game, be ready to work as a team. Go into a solo game and its whatever... Its really not that hard to do.. They have already done it with the current types of games.
I get that matchmaking/Elo feels that way but all you're seeing is law of averages combined with some aspects of human perception. Confirmation bias, your tendency to ignore minor wins but focus on major losses, etc. There is nothing in the matchmaking that keeps track of how many wins you get and intentionally sandbags you to make you lose. That would, in fact, be way tougher to code - and why would they? Joy in upsetting people?
The more you win, the higher your Elo. The higher your Elo, the higher the Elo of people you'll play against on average. Sometimes good and bad players make good and bad choices. Inevitably you'll have games where otherwise good players have a dumb. We've all had games where we did something stupid and got knocked out early. No matter how good you are. Sometimes it's you, sometimes it's a teammate.
Conversely the more you lose the worse your teams get - both yours and the others, as your Elo goes down.
Now, not every game is evenly matched. Nor would you want it to be. To get more specific, the matchmaker tries to match teams of approximately equal Elo, however one will inevitably be higher and one lower. If you beat a higher Elo team, your Elo goes up quite a bit. If you lose to a higher Elo team, you lose very little (if any). If you lose to a lower Elo team you lose quite a bit. If you beat a lower Elo team you gain little (if any).
The matchmaker and Elo are not there to try to average out your wins by putting you with better or worse teams to make your win/loss about average. It just tries to put you in teams comparable to your own skill. It predicts, based on how people have done before, how likely they are to win or lose the match. If the match works out like it predicted then little if any changes. If it predicted wrong it adjusts peoples scores to reflect that.
Your win/loss will move inexorably towards 50/50 unless you continue to improve because the matchmaker will constantly try to put you with and against comparably skilled people. It's not intentionally matching you with bad people to make you lose or against great people to make you lose, nor vice versa. It's just trying to put you in matches with comparatively skilled people. If there are not 23 comparatively skilled people it'll get as close as it can and then, if you perform better than expected, bump your Elo up or worse than expected, bump it down to try and keep you in the range of people who perform like you do.
As to CW....
Not gonna happen. We'll get an 'e-sport' arena environment. Maybe a Clans vs Inner Sphere arena. For whatever reason it seems to be outside of the scope of what PGI can provide. I'm not even upset about that, not really. It's a business, I get that. It needs to be profitable and maybe CW just didn't turn out to be as profitable as first projected. The reasons are irrelevant.
All you'll ever see of CW is promises though. That's it. Slideshows and the like. Faction points and 'e-sports' stuff. CW however.... I hate to say this but I don't see it ever happening.
5
Your win/loss in pugging is based on your performance. Nothing else. That works because of the team size limits in place. I'd say a group queue would have to largely avoid any Elo since it would, in that environment, truly be meaningless. At that point your win/loss is largely dictated by who you drop with as they are about as consistent as your own presence in the match, destroying any value in the sample being indicative of your personal performance.
